But you are completely wrong about the founding principals of our country and other fledgling western democracies (such as France). Modern western society is built on the idea of social equality, not any particular economic system.

Beav:

Quote:

France was a bit player in the development of modern Western Civ. There's a reason they went from a major world power in the age of Kings to a me-too country in the Anglo-American age. Because, as you allude to, they had a different set of values.

Herpderps: "But what aboot wat da King did! Napoleon waz good too!"

I feel sorry for whoever had to endure you kids in school whenever they had to teach the importance of context in reading comprehension.

Except, I give too much credit. You know how obtuse you're being. You just can't find a satisfactory answer to the question. So you've grasped this particularly sad straw.

France is just about the last country you should model a thriving Democracy after. Your silence on the actual topic only underlines it.

Look for examples, illustrations or explanations. Difficult or uncommon words may be followed by information to help discern the meaning. The writer sometimes uses phrases to help identify examples and explanations: for example, such as, including, consists of, for instance, is like. Even without specific words introducing the meaning of an unknown word, phrases and sentences in the paragraph give further explanation, often enough to make a logical or educated guess as to the meaning of the word.

I feel sorry for whoever had to endure you kids in school whenever they had to teach the importance of context in reading comprehension.

LMAO another miserably failed attempt to condescend. It's pretty hilarious that while trying to condescend about reading comprehension and following a conversation, you attempt to attribute statements to me that I didn't even make. EPIC FAIL.

But speaking of reading comprehension, we're talking about the development of western civilization (you know, the thing you explicitly claim France had no significant part in creating). Do you even understand what the historical concept of "modern western civilization" means and all the multitude of factors that it consists of and was built from? Do you have any idea of the timeline of that development?

Apparently not, as your line of questions and arguments demonstrate quite clearly.

Quote:

Except, I give too much credit. You know how obtuse you're being. You just can't find a satisfactory answer to the question. So you've grasped this particularly sad straw.

France is just about the last country you should model a thriving Democracy after. Your silence on the actual topic only underlines it.

The only person being obtuse is the guy who, at this point, appears to be trying to distill (through either dishonesty or hilarious levels of ignorance) the concept of modern western civilization into just a form of government, and even then trying to pretend that France and French thinkers didn't make significant contributions to that.

LMAO another miserably failed attempt to condescend. It's pretty hilarious that while trying to condescend about reading comprehension and following a conversation, you attempt to attribute statements to me that I didn't even make. EPIC FAIL.

But speaking of reading comprehension, we're talking about the development of western civilization (you know, the thing you explicitly claim France had no significant part in creating). Do you even understand what the historical concept of "modern western civilization" means and all the multitude of factors that it consists of and was built from? Do you have any idea of the timeline of that development?

Apparently not, as your line of questions and arguments demonstrate quite clearly.

The only person being obtuse is the guy who, at this point, appears to be trying to distill (through either dishonesty or hilarious levels of ignorance) the concept of modern western civilization into just a form of government, and even then trying to pretend that France and French thinkers didn't make significant contributions to that.

You're a ****ing idiot.

Lots of bull****ty fluff. Still not a single answer about what French Democracy has given the world.

Well, once again trying to bypass BB's lame attempts to deflect and misdirect the threads he doesn't like, to me this it one of the core ideas behind the liberal/progressive idea of government:

Rather than formulating policy from speculative axioms, reformers beginning in
the mid-19th century increasingly devoted themselves to the gathering and analysis of socioeconomic data. In America, the measures adopted during the Progressive era, New Deal, and Great Society were often ad hoc and experimental, and many failed. But partly through better knowledge, partly by trial and error, liberal governments discovered that certain forms of limited state intervention could help bring the promise of a free and just society closer to fulfillment while reducing the waste of human and physical resources and improving economic performance. Modern liberalism has never been ruled by a
theory in the way that free-market conservatism and Marxian socialism have been. A pragmatic emphasis on experience and evidence—on how things work in practice—has been critical in making liberalism work.

Only a fool would argue that liberalism didn't work. Who in America today would not trade in a heartbeat the economic world we have today for the economic world of post-WWII America?

With the advent of modern science came the shift in modern liberalism to a more scientific approach. They adopted the new rise in science to political theory. What is quantifiably the best system of government for the most people? How can we implement it? How can we take what we learn and turn it into concrete advantage for the greatest number of our people?

Through demagoguery, greed and outright lies, we've allowed ourselves to be steered back to the feudal default, the same heirarchical rich-take-all economics that Babylonian kings would recognize. What does the Right do now but spout axioms and theories? What is libertarianism itself but just a religion, in all but name? Hell, they couldn't care less about evidence. Under Reagan, the Right was able to shove through massive tax breaks for the rich and corporations. What has been the result? Under Clinton, the Right was able to dismantle the market and banking regulations of Glass/Steagle. What has been the result?

I've posted numerous times the study of Ted Wilkinson on the effects of wealth disparity on societies. That is scientific evidence, not some theory. Not an axiom. Not a slogan. Wealth disparity destroys nations. America's is the worst in the world.

Instead, we now have a movement on the Right which is not only anti-evidence, but anti-science. Global climate change caused by humans? Doesn't exist. And if you disagree, you are a traitor.

This was a statement made by Rush Limbaugh: The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.

Really? Anybody else see the problem here? What society prospers by attacking its fundamentally progressive institutions? Science? Academia? Who next? Writers? Poets? We already know about the Right's full frontal assault on the teaching profession.

The right's project over the last 30 years has been to dismantle the post-war liberal consensus by undermining trust in society's leading institutions. Experts are made elites; their presumption of expertise becomes self-damning. They think they're better than you. They talk down to you. They don't respect people like us, real Americans. ... The decline in trust in institutions has generated fear and uncertainty, to which people generally respond by placing their trust in protective authorities. And some subset of people respond with tribalism, nationalism, and xenophobia. The right ... offer[s] a space to huddle in safety among the like-minded. The conservative movement in America has created a self-contained, hermetically sealed epistemological reality ... designed not just as a source of alternative facts but as an identity. David Roberts, Grist

We can go forward, or we can go backwards. The modern American Right wants to go downright medieval on our asses.

I've posted numerous times the study of Ted Wilkinson on the effects of wealth disparity on societies. That is scientific evidence, not some theory. Not an axiom. Not a slogan. Wealth disparity destroys nations. America's is the worst in the world.

Instead, we now have a movement on the Right which is not only anti-evidence, but anti-science. Global climate change caused by humans? Doesn't exist. And if you disagree, you are a traitor.

This was a statement made by Rush Limbaugh: The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.

The Wilkinson presentation was a compendium of numerous studies as quoted in the piece which you would never watch but feel free to blather on about because, like I say, the Right ignores evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

Rush Limbaugh has been the spokesman and bell ringer of the radical Right movement in this country since the 80s. I'm sure you will simply ignore the mountain of evidence that proves that point that as well. To argue that the Right is not anti-science is so pathetic it's beyond belief.

The Wilkinson presentation was a compendium of numerous studies as quoted in the piece which you would never watch but feel free to blather on about because, like I say, the Right ignores evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

Rush Limbaugh has been the spokesman and bell ringer of the radical Right movement in this country since the 80s. I'm sure you will simply ignore the mountain of evidence that proves that point that as well. To argue that the Right is not anti-science is so pathetic it's beyond belief.

Funny, you tell me what I watch and don't watch and then tell me I'm represented by someone I only hear anything from when you kids are whining about him.